https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=819687
--- Comment #4 from Tomas DabaĊĦinskas <tdaba...@redhat.com> ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> Hello,
>
> I've done an informal review (as I'm not a sponsor, and my request for
> package maintainer is pending).
>
>
> Why do you define a new macro %{srcname} if you could also just use %{name}
> after setting this in the first line?
fixed
> You are inconsistent with your use of macro's: first you use %{srcname} and
> %{version} in %prep, but then you use $RPM_BUILD_ROOT in %install.
fixed
> You should not do rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT (or %(buildroot}) in %install,
> unless you want to package for el5, but you only provided an el6, so I am
> not sure of your intentions on this.
> There are more errors/warning you can ignore if you are also doing this
> package for el5.
fixed
>
> Why do you add the %defattr to %files, as this should be the default?
>
fixed
> Is this packaging effort really from June 11 in 2009, or did you make a
> mistake in the Changelog?
fixed
>
> I think you really should include documentation.
> You could add %doc README.rst for that purpose.
>
fixed
> You should ask upstream to include the license file.
>
> Note: version 0.2.1 was released the day after you submitted this review
> request, maybe you should update your spec to use this one?
>
The 0.2.1 adds support kerberos authentication, I will update the package once
it gets approved
I updated the srpm and spec file and ran the review myself:
Package Review
==============
Key:
- = N/A
x = Pass
! = Fail
? = Not evaluated
==== Generic ====
[ ]: MUST Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: MUST Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at
least one supported primary architecture.
[x]: MUST All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[!]: MUST Buildroot is not present
Note: Buildroot is not needed unless packager plans to package for EPEL5
[ ]: MUST Package contains no bundled libraries.
[ ]: MUST Changelog in prescribed format.
[!]: MUST Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
Note: Clean is needed only if supporting EPEL
[ ]: MUST Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[x]: MUST Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4
Note: Note: defattr macros not found. They would be needed for EPEL5
[ ]: MUST Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[ ]: MUST Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[ ]: MUST Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[ ]: MUST Package is not known to require ExcludeArch.
[x]: MUST Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: MUST Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: MUST Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags.
[x]: MUST Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
Note: rm -rf would be needed if support for EPEL5 is required
[ ]: MUST If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %doc.
[ ]: MUST License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
[ ]: MUST Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[ ]: MUST Package meets the Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: MUST Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[ ]: MUST Package does not generates any conflict.
[ ]: MUST Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[ ]: MUST Package must own all directories that it creates.
[ ]: MUST Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[ ]: MUST Package installs properly.
[ ]: MUST Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: MUST Rpmlint output is silent.
rpmlint python-rtkit-0.2.0-1.fc18.src.rpm
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
rpmlint python-rtkit-0.2.0-1.fc18.noarch.rpm
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
[x]: MUST Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
/home/bne/tdabasin/819687/python-rtkit-0.2.0.tar.gz :
MD5SUM this package : 69f325e74b6dbc75f8f3b1f1e9b173b3
MD5SUM upstream package : 69f325e74b6dbc75f8f3b1f1e9b173b3
[ ]: MUST Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[x]: MUST Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[ ]: MUST Package contains a SysV-style init script if in need of one.
[x]: MUST File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: SHOULD Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[ ]: SHOULD If the source package does not include license text(s) as a
separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to
include it.
[x]: SHOULD Dist tag is present.
[ ]: SHOULD No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin,
/usr/sbin.
[ ]: SHOULD Final provides and requires are sane (rpm -q --provides and rpm -q
--requires).
[ ]: SHOULD Package functions as described.
[ ]: SHOULD Package does not include license text files separate from
upstream.
[x]: SHOULD SourceX is a working URL.
[ ]: SHOULD Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[ ]: SHOULD Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
[ ]: SHOULD %check is present and all tests pass.
[ ]: SHOULD Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
files.
[x]: SHOULD Spec use %global instead of %define.
Issues:
[!]: MUST Buildroot is not present
Note: Buildroot is not needed unless packager plans to package for EPEL5
[!]: MUST Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
Note: Clean is needed only if supporting EPEL
Generated by fedora-review 0.1.2
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
_______________________________________________
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
